Some Reflections on the Letter from “7 Ts. 6 F.”[2]

Iam writing under the fresh impression of your letter, which I have just
      read. Its senseless twaddle is so exasperating that I am unable to
      suppress the desire to state my opinion frankly. Please send my letter on
      to the author and tell him that he need not take offence at the severe
      tone. After all, it is not meant for publication.

Theletter deserves a reply, in my opinion, because it shows up in
      particularly bold relief a characteristic trait in the mood of many
      present-day revolutionaries: waiting for instructions; demandingeverythingfrom above, from others, from outside; looking lost
      when faced by failures caused by local inactivity; piling up complaint
      after complaint, and inventing recipes for a cheap and simple cure of the
      evil.

Youwill not invent anything, gentlemen! If youyourselvesare
      inactive, if you permit splits to take place under your very noses and
      then heave sighs and make complaint—no recipes will helpyou. And it is utterly absurd to shower us with complaints on this
      score. Don’t imagine that you offend us by your accusations and attacks:
      you see, we have become inured, so devilishly inured to them that they do
      not provoke us!

“Mass”literature “by the hundredweight”
      —this battle-cry of yours is nothing but animaginary
      recipefor someone else to cure you of your own inactivity. Believe
      me, no such recipes willeverwork! If you yourselves are not
      energetic and alert, no one will help you in any way. It is highly
      unreasonable to wail,“g i v eus this or that,d e l i v e rsomething or other,” whenyou yourselves should do the getting and
	delivering. It is useless to write about it to us, for we cannot do
	it from here, whereas you can and shoulddo it by yourselves: I am referring to the delivery of literature we are
      publishing and have on hand.

Somelocal “activists” (so called because they are inactive),
      who have seen no more than a few issues ofIskraand who do not
      work actively to get and distribute it inmassquantities, invent
      the flimsy excuse: “That is not what we want. Give usmassliterature, for the masses! Masticate it for us, put it into our mouths,
      and perhaps we’ll manage to do the swallowing ourselves.”

Howphenomenally absurd these plaints appear to those who know and see
      that they, these local “activists,” are unable to organise the
      distribution of even what is available. Is it not ridiculous to read: give
      us hundredweights, when youare unableto take and transport even
      af e w   p o u n d s?Do that first, worthy “dreamers for an hour” (for the first
      mishap makes you abandon everything, even all your convictions!). Do that,
      and then, when you have done it not once, but dozens of times, the
      publication, too,will growwith the demand.

Isay it will grow, for your plaints about mass literature (which you have
      uncritically and senselessly copied from the Socialist-Revolutionaries,Svobodapeople, and all sorts of confused “inactivists”)
      are caused by forgetfulness of a small ... a very small trifle, namely,
      forgetfulness of the fact that you are unable to take and distributeeven a hundredth partof the mass literature we are publishing
      now. I shall take one of the recent lists of one of our few (miserably,
      pitifully, shamefully few) consignments.The Nizhni-Novgorod speeches,
      the Rostov struggle, the pamphlet on strikes, the Dikstein

	pamphlet[1][3]–I

      shall limit myself to these. Four, only four small items! So little!!

Yes,it is very little! Yes, we need four hundred, not four.

But,permit me to ask you, have you been able to distribute atleast
      these four things by the ten thousand?No, you have not been able to
      do this. You have not been able to distribute them by the hundred
      even.That is whyyou shout:giveus hundredweights! (No
      one will evergiveyou anything if you are unable totakeit: bear that in mind.)

Haveyou been able to make use of thehundredsof copies which
      have beendeliveredto you,broughtto you,and
      placed into your mouths??No, you have not been able to do that. Even
      in this trifle you have not been able to link up themasseswith
      Social-Democracy. Every month we get tens and hundreds of Leaflets,
      reports, news items, and letters from all parts of Russia, but we have hadnot a single(give good thought to the exact meaning of the
      words, “not a single”!) report about the distribution of these
      hundreds of copies among themasses, about the impression they
      made on themasses, about the reaction of themasses,
      about discussions among themasseson

        t h e s e  

      things! You are placing us in a position wherein the writer does the
      writing and the reader (the intellectual) does the reading—after
      which this same slothful reader fulminates against the writer because he
      (the writer!!!) does not furnish literature “by the
      hundredweight” everywhere. The person whose sole business it is tol i n k   u pthe writer with the masses sits like a ruffled turkey and gobbles away:
      give us mass literature, whileat the sametimehe is
      unableto make use of even ah u n d r e d t h   p a r tof what is available.

Youwill of course say that it isimpossible, impossible in
      general, to get, for instance,Iskra, our main product,linked upwith the masses. I know you will say that. I have heard
      it hundreds of times and have always replied that this is untrue, that it
      is a subterfuge, shirking, inability, and indolence, the desire to have
      roast duck fly straight into your mouths.

Iknow from the facts that enterprising peoplehave been ableto
      “link up”Iskra(this super-intellectualIskra, as the sorry little intellectuals consider it) with themassesof even such backward and uneducated workers as those in
      the industrial gubernias around Moscow. I have knownworkerswho
      have themselves distributedIskraamong the masses (there)and who merely remarked that there were too few copies. Quite recently I
      heard a “soldier from the field of battle” tell of how in one
      such out-of-the-way factory area in central RussiaIskrais read
      at one and the same time in numerous circles, at gatherings numbering from
      ten to fifteen people, the committee and subcommitteesthemselvesreading over every issue in advance,planningjointly just how to
      use each article in agitation talks. And they were able to make use of
      even those paltry five to eight (maximum:eight!!) copies which
      were all that they got owing to the helpless inactivity of the activists
      stationed near the border (who are never even able to make arrangements
      for reception of literature consignments and hope that the writer will
      give birth not only to articles but to people to do the work for them!).

Comenow, tell us with your hand over your heart: have many of you madesuchuse ofe v e r ycopy ofIskrayou received (delivered to you, broughttoyou)? You are silent! Well then, let me tell you: oneout of a
      hundredcopies that get to Russia (by the will of the fates and due
      to the inactivity of the “readers”) is being usedin this
      way, with discussions on the agitation value of every item, with
      readings of every item in workers’ study circles, inallcircles
      ofallworkers who are accustomed to foregather in a particular
      town. And yet people who are unable toassimilateeven a
      hundredth part of the material that gets to them wail: give us hundred
      weights!! Shchedrin’s formula (the writer does the writing) still regards
      the “reader” far, far too optimistically!!

Thepresent-day reader (from among the Social-Democratic intellectuals)
      has gone so far as to complain about thewritersbecause the
      local intellectuals are lazy and “order” the workers about,
      without doing anything for them. The complaint is justified, a thousand
      times justified, only ...  is it directed to the proper quarter? Won’t you
      permit us toreturn this complaint to the sender, with a double
      charge as punishment?? What about yourselves, my worthy complainants? If
      your friends areunableto make use ofIskrafor
      readings in workers’ study circles, if they areunableto assign
      people for the delivery and distribution of literature, if they areunableto assist the workers to set up circles for this purpose,
      whyd o n’ t   y o u   t h r o wsuch helpless friendso v e r b o a r d??Just think, in what sort of prettysituation do you find yourselves when you complain tousabouty o u r   o w nhelplessness?

Itis af a c tthat the “practicians” do not make use of even a hundredth
      part of all theycouldtake. And it is a no less indubitable fact
      that the special varieties of “mass” literature which these
      people have thought up are only pretexts and dodges. In the letter of
      "7 Ts. 6 F.,” for instance, three varieties are recommended to
      “us” (ii would be to us, of course):

1)A popular newspaper. Chew over every fact so as to make its
      assimilation possible without digestion, so thatw e,
      “activists,” should need no stomachs at all.

Itdoes not matter that the world has never yet seen such a
      “popular” “newspaper,” since a newspapergiver
      answerstoeverything, while popular literaturegives
      instructionona few things.It does not matter thatallour examples of such literature, beginning withRabochaya
      Mysl, on throughVperyods,[4]Rabocheye Dyelos,Krasnoye

	Znamyas,”[5]and the like, have unavoidably and necessarily proved mongrels, being
      neither popular nor newspapers. It does not matter thatallefforts of the “workers’” news papers have merely nurtured, and
      always will nurture, the absurd division into an intellectual movement and
      a working-class movement (a division caused by the dull-wittedness and
      bungling of the intellectuals, who go so far as to send complaints about
      their own bungling from theseat of the troubleto the ends of
      the earth!). It does not matter thatallthe efforts of the
      “workers’” newspapers so far have been breeding, and will always
      breed among us, amateurishness and special, profound, Kazan and Kharkov
      theories. All this does not matter. Look at thecaptivating
      Svobodagroup and thecaptivating(“breath-taking”)
      Socialist-Revolutionaries; what a mass (ugh, what a mass!) of popular
      newspapers and periodicals they are publishing!!Narodnoye Dyelo,
      Krasnoye Znamya, Svoboda—a magazine for workers,Otkliki—anewspaper and magazine for workers,Luchina—forpeasants,Rabochaga Mysl—the
      Geneva news paper of the St. Petersburg workers!! It does not matter that
      all this is trash, but it ism a s strash for all that.

Andall you have is just oneIskra; after all, it gets
      monotonous!  Thirty-one issues and allIskra, while with thecaptivating people every two issues of one title (of trash) are
      immediately followed by three issues of another title (of trash). Now,
      this is energy, this is jolly, this is new! But our Social-Democrats....

2)And “they” are always having new pamphlets. Each reprint is
      considered a pamphlet and all this is meretriciously trumpeted forth, and
      the printed sheets are added up (a million printed sheets: see No. 16 ofRevolutsionnaya Rossiya.They have broken all records!
      Champions!).

Butin our case! Reprints are not counted as pamphlets— that is
      highbrowism, bookishness!! The ancient Dikstein pamphlets are being
      republished, when every girl in Paris and in Chernigov knows thattennew pamphlets (trash) are worth a hundred times more than one
      old pamphlet, even a good one.

Itis only the Germans who do things in such a way that, for example, in
      1903 Bebel’sOur Aims, writtenthirty-fouryears ago, is
      being republished for theeleventhtime!! That is so boring. Our
      “captivating” Socialist-Revolutionaries are pouring out
      stuff. But our local “activists” are able to use neither theo l dPlekhanov pamphlets (twenty years old: ancient stuff! To the archives with
      them!), nor “some” one (one!) pamphlet on

      strikes[6]and on the Witte memorandum!

Thisquite apart from the fact that the local “activist” does
      not lift a finger to squeezeg o o dpamphlets out of authors now in exile—andto get local writers
      to contribute to “Iskra.”Why do that? It is much easier to
      complain than to undertake such a troublesome business! And the
      present-day reader unblushingly calls himself anIskra-ist on the
      grounds that he writes complaints toIskra.  Nor does it trouble
      his conscience in the slightest that 90 per cent of the articles are
      written by the one and the same three and a half writers. Nor does he find
      it necessary even to think about the fact thatIskramust not be
      allowed to stop publication and that the fortnightly issue of one and a
      half to two signatures calls for a lot of work. Still, he continues to
      shout with simply unparalleled fatuity: thirty-one issues, and there are
      still many fools in the localities and much helpless wailing!! A truly
      crushing argument.... Only whom and what does it crush?

3)Leaflets.

Gi v eus leaflets! The committees cannot do it!! Write,
      deliver, bring (and distribute?) leaflets!

Well,now, this is indeed consistent. I open my mouth and you shovel it
      in: here we have the new formula for the relations between the
      “writer” and theIskrapractician! To go so far as to
      state that the local organisations (consisting of slothful
      “activists”?) cannot manage to issue local leaflets, that these
      leaflets should be delivered from abroad, that is thelimit. This
      is such a splendid (in my opinion) crowning touch to the whole letter of
      “7 Ts. 6 F.” that it only remains for me to conclude with this
      “crown.” Any further remarks or comments will only dim its shining
      lustre.

[1]“This is old stuff!” you wail. Yes. All parties that havegoodpopular literature have been distributingo l ds t u f f:  

      Guesde and Lafargue, Bebel, Bracke, Liebknecht, etc.,f o rd e c a d e s.  

      Do you hear: for decades! And theo n l ypopular literature that isgood, theonlypopular
      literature that issuitableis that which can servefor
      decades.For popular literature is a series oftextbooks for the
      people, and textbooks teach the ABC, which remains unchanged forf i f t y   y e a r sat a time. The “popular” literature which
      “captivates” you and which theSvobodagroup and
      Socialist-Revolutionaries publish by the hundredweight every month iswaste paperandcharlatanism. Charlatans always bustle
      and make the greatest noise, and some naïve people mistake that for
      energy.
    —Lenin

[2]7 Ts. 6. F.—pseudonym of the Bolshevik F. V. Lengnik.

[3]The Nizhni-Novgorod speeches—thereference is to the
      speeches made by Nizhni-Novgorod revolutionary workers during their trial
      for participation in demonstrations. These speeches were published inIskraand then as a pamphlet.

TheRoslov struggle—thereference is to the pamphlet,The Struggle of the Rostov Workers, published byIskra.

Thepamphlet on strikesrefers to the pamphlet,The Autocracy and
	Strikes, published in Geneva by the League of Russian Revolutionary
	Social-Democracy.

TheDikstein pamphlet—thisrefers to a popular Marxist
      pamphlet,The Ways People Live, by Dikstein.

[4]Vperyod (Forward)—anewspaper of the
      “economist” trend, published in Kiev between 1896 and 1900.

[5]Krasnoye Znamya (Red Banner)—organof the
      “economists,” was published by the Union of Russian Social-Democrats
      Abroad from November 1902 to January 1903 to take the place ofRabocheye Dyelo.Three numbers were issued.

[6]Lenin is referring to the pamphlet,The Autocracy and Strikes.